I just had a weird online encounter on Bluesky that made me start wondering what people are willing to accept when it comes to negative online social contact (comments, replies)? What sorts of things are red lines for you personally?
Previously, I would accept quite a bit and would only block/mute/report somebody if it was incredibly offensive, but I would still try to explain myself, argue my point, or defuse a situation or whatever, still honestly trying to engage and make my case. I would rarely block anybody because that seemed almost like cowardice, like I was running from a fight. Since joining Bluesky however, I will not hesitate to block people for the simplest of reasons. Oftentimes if they start parroting obvious right-wing propaganda, if it’s a bot, if they’re offensive, make it personal, or if they’re obviously trolling. As soon as a person starts calling names or makes accusations about the person themselves and strays away from the topic at hand, that’s kind of become my personal red line. If you don’t know me and you make it personal right away, we’re done.
To give some background, my conversation that prompted this was over books vs audiobooks (it’s been a subject for weeks on bluesky). I was responding to a librarian’s post saying that it’s a pointless debate, books are books, doesn’t matter if you read a book or listen to an audiobook. I replied, agreeing with her point, saying that the experience of taking in a story is what we’re doing, whether it’s a regular book with text, picture book, audiobook, movie, or whatever. One format or another may have trade-offs, but you’re still absorbing the story, it’s still a similar experience you’re getting. Not particularly controversial, just adding input, just whatever.
A reply came in from another person, somewhat combative from the start, not particularly long, but there was edge to it I could tell (“So what are you saying? Reading is reading, listening is listening” or something like that). I assumed they wanted more clarification (thus the ‘?’), so wrote back just kind of explaining how media formats are different, our brain takes in the information differently, but that one format or the other wasn’t better, just different. Again, not directed at the person, just discussing the idea.
They replied back with something fairly negative, really sounding like they wanted to start an argument and directing it personally at me as if I was the one being argumentative for replying to their question. Without hesitation I just blocked them. I was like, I’m not going to waste my time engaging with this person (though I apparently will waste my time posting about it on Lemmy). I’m not really afraid of getting feelings hurt or anything, call me whatever you want, but if it’s an obvious negative experience they’re trying to goad me into, I’m not going to engage, I’m just going to walk away.
It’s an interesting thing that’s happening on Bluesky, because that’s the overall behavior that seems to be encouraged on there that I haven’t really seen elsewhere, don’t engage with obviously negative people, it’s not worth it. Is that what we should be striving for, starving the trolls and trying to encourage polite, civil discourse?
I treat online like real life. I don’t go to places I don’t like and do go to places I do like and might pass a place and check it out and be like, eww never going there again, or hey this is great, new regular place, or just meh maybe I will drop by on a lol. similarly I subscribe when i feel I like something enough and block if I don’t like it enough.
It’s easier to block annoyance when they are few of them. I guess since there’s so many bad actors on Twitter it just became difficult to handle. Like having an email inbox full of spam…
Whenever I catch myself typing too long on a reply or getting frustrated, I ask myself: “Would it be better for me to just send a picture of a pig pooping on his own balls?”
If the answer is yes, I stop typing and either block or move on.
Depends on their history.
Sometimes it’s a language-barrier issue, so they’re not necessarily meaning to be combative. Other times, as confirmed by looking back at their older submissions, they’re just combative and toxic. In the latter case, I block and move on.
If it’s a public forum and a topic of general interest, I bear in mind that every commenter likely represents a number of lurkers and later readers with a similar point of view—and those others deserve a decent response, even if the commenter currently expressing their viewpoint doesn’t.
I generally don’t block people for such things. I just don’t respond anymore and that ends the conversation. Sometimes I’m in the mood to engage and we have a long (or short) argument. Can be everything. A misunderstanding, different culture. Or it’s a troll or someone stirring up drama or yelling their small perspective at anyone. Or it makes me think in the real world no one listens to their shit any more so they have to look for people online to “talk” to.
But I do block people. For example immediately if they spread hate, misinformation, are overly argumentative or attack people. Or spam. That’d be my main reason here.
(And I really don’t have to hang out with people I don’t like. Just disagreeing or being mildly negative won’t do it for me. Not even starting an argument with just me, if(!) it’s genuine and civil and I’m in the mood to talk. And people do listen. Otherwise, there is no point in engaging. And lots of argumentative people can’t listen, and that’s where I’m out.)
If im feeling very charitable and it’s unclear whether the question is honest they get one answer/reply to show it.
If they’re clearly baiting/trolling/negative then block is great because I’ll never meet them in real life and they’re not here to engage critically.
If they show thoughtful criticism then it’s just a matter of whether i have the interest or energy to reply, which i often don’t. If i do I’ll engage as long as they seem thoughtful. The second i sense my mood faltering I’m closing the app. I can’t have any more days ruined by random people on the internet. I’ll most likely forget to reply after that.
Text communication is always going to be a challenge for human beings. We are just not evolved for conversation where you can’t see a face or at least hear a voice. It’s a constant minefield, the potential for misunderstanding is almost insurmountable. To pull off a fruitful discussion by text, especially with multiple participants and group dynamics in play, and have people learn things and feel that they’ve had a decent hearing - that really counts as a triumph, in my view. It is absolutely the exception, not the rule.
The best way to do it? In my view: to take an almost autistic approach. Stick as rigidly as possible to facts and to the topic. Assume good faith, even when it’s hard. Steer clear of humor and second degree. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the most civil, productive virtual communities (Hacker News, for example) are filled with IT types for whom these qualities come a bit more naturally.
Another rule I have: no swearing. At best it looks infantile, at worst it it just raises the temperature pointlessly. (Personally I often stop reading a comment when I see the word “fucking” - this is not a serious contribution that I need bother with.)
And I’ve also learned to try to avoid the word “you”. This BTW is a standard trick used to encourage civil in-person debate, for example in parliaments where people will address each other using the third person or via the speaker. It’s also why so many languages have formal words for “you”, intended to increase distance. It turns out the word “you” functions as a sort of low-level trigger for humans, a bit like eye contact for so many other animals. Best avoided.
As I was saying: text communication is just hard. I think we all need to make more allowances for this fact.
That “You” part was specifically something I was thinking about before I wrote this. It sounded odd when I first started thinking about it, but that often becomes the point when the other person starts making it personal. It’s one thing if a person says it as an example, “Would you be ok if this or this happened?” But if they’re personally directing it at me, whether name calling or accusing or something more confrontational, that’s where it usually crosses over.
Death threats and doxxing are generally a red line for me. Not much before that bothers me
Sounds like a reasonable response (yours).
I block easily, but I tend to unblock everyone shortly thereafter.
I never block them. I just let them think they won by giving them the last word and “liking” or “upvoting” their last reply. Last word doesn’t mean you won. No one wins an argument unless one party admits they were wrong or decides to agree, etc. if the argument can still be continued but is just left ‘on read’ etc, it is just an incomplete conversation. If I continue to argue, it will be a waste. If I block them, it signifies they got to me. If they are a troll, I just think to myself that they are only like this behind a screen and wouldn’t dare say anything offensive in public to the wrong individual. They will eventually get their comeuppance. I also leave the conversation untouched sometimes because often other random strangers might just defend my point which usually happens and I laugh.
Sometimes I like to reply with a sarcastic comment or joke or just troll them back for fun and entertainment. Fight trolls with trolling, after all it’s what they want, right?.
That’s kind of how I thought about it before, I didn’t want them to think they had gotten to me, that they had “won” the argument, but anymore I feel like I’m using it because I just don’t care to interact with them and I don’t want any incidental contact in the future. We disappear from each other’s online presence, I don’t have to think about them ever again. They can think they “won”, whatever, I’ve stopped thinking about them anymore.
Lots of people went from Twitter/X to Bluesky, and we know how much the Twitter environment has long been toxic, so the probability of toxicity within Bluesky increases as more X people are establishing there as we speak. I mean, it’s obviously not everyone, it’s obviously not a rule of thumb, but Bluesky was made a new agora by currently 20 million people (numbers from news dating back to two weeks ago), with the majority of them having left X long after that billionaire bought the platform, so they kept within the toxic environment (the X platform) longer than expected. Chances are that people who were structural maintainers of the toxicity of X are now on Bluesky, trying to toxicize it too, by means of attacking people. (I read through a Lemmy post that there’s an entire botnet pretending to be people and these bots are engaging in combative/trolling replies across Bluesky)
I have no Bluesky account, and many things make me dismiss my own intrusive thoughts of signing up there, one of which is directly related to this, the possibility of facing bots and toxicity from X, following the exodus of people (bots and trolls need people to spam/impersonate and to troll). While Mastodon (the real fediverse’s Twitter/X alternative) is often a cemetery (lacking enough interactions and activity), it seems to lack the toxicity from X.
I don’t block for arguments, generally, but I do block anyone on Lemmy with a big blue name
I’m lika guerilla fighter online. I come out swinging and retreat (block) at the drop of a pencil I.D.G.A.F.
Having said that, I’m actually far less likely to block the insane people online than the normal ones who just do something to upset me. It’s a lot more interesting with them around.
I only block spam.
Blocking people is how you end up in the echo chamber.
